Ri  char- d  Nev- 1  on 


The  Present  Crisis  in  the 
Protestant  E-oiscopa-1 

Church,  and  the  duty  of 
Evan^-elica.l  men  in 
reference  to  it. 


^■i  OF  PHI^ 


K. 


omLtn'^^ 


m^mymtiifn*^ 


t 


i^r 


THE 


PRESENT  CRISIS 


K\i. 


IN  THE 


PliOTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCR 


■.)- 
i 

,t; 

I; 


AND  THE 


DUTY  OF  EVANGELICAL  MEN  IN  REFERENCE  TO  IT. 


BEING    THE 


SUBSTANCE  OF  A  SERMON 


;P  REACH  ED  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  THE  EPIPHANY 

BY  THE  BECTOR, 

REV.  RICHARD  NEWTON,  D.D., 

Pliiladelphia,  May  31,  1874. 


PUBLISHED   BY   REQUEST. 


PHILADELPHIA  : 
JAMES     HAMMO  N  D, 

SUCCESSOR  TO  THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  BOOK  SOCIETY. 
1224  CHESTNUT  STREET. 

1874. 


THE  I   .  JAi:i8    1946   , 


rRESENT  CRISIS 


IN  THE 


PKOTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH, 


AND  THE 


DUTY  OF  EVANGELICAL  MEN  IN  REFERENCE  TO  IT. 

BEING    THE 

SUBSTANCE  OF  A  SERMON 
PREACHED  IN  THE  CHURCH  OF  THE  EPIPHANY 

BY  THE  RECTOR, 

REV.  RICHARD  NEWTON,  D.D., 

Pliiladelphia,  May  31,  1874. 


PUBLISHED   BY   REQUEST. 


PHILADELPHIA  : 
JAMES     HAMMOND, 

SUCCESSOR  TO  THE  PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  BOOK  SOCIETY. 
1224  CHESTNUT  STREET. 

1874. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


http://www.archive.org/details/presentcrisisinpOOnewt 


THE  PRESENT  CRISIS 


IN   THE 


PROTESTANT  EPISCOPAL  CHURCH. 


The  subject  now  to  be  considered  is,  the  present 
crisis  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  and  the 
duty  of  evangelical  men  in  reference  thereto. 

There  does  exist  a  crisis  in  this  Church.  On  the 
one  hand,  there  is  a  party  in  the  Church  that  are 
rushing  into  all  the  extremes  of  sacerdotalism. 
Thej  would  carry  the  Church  back  to  the  doctrines 
and  practices  of  the  dark  ages,  before  the  Keforma- 
tion  dawned.  On  the  other  hand,  there  has  been 
organized  during  the  past  year,  what  is  called  a 
Reformed  Episcopal  Church,  and  some  very  worthy 
and  excellent  persons  from  this  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  have  joined  it.  And  the  question  now 
before  us — the  question  of  the  day,  for  evangelical 
men  to  consider  is  this — what  is  our  duty  in  refer- 
ence to  this  new  Church '?  I  take  my  stand  de- 
cidedly, and  firmly  by  the  old  Church,  and  now 
wish  to  present  five  good,  and  substantial  reasons 
why  evangelical  men  should  not  leave  this  Church 


4 

The  first  reason^  and  the  most  natural  one,  for 
not  leaving  the  old  Church  is,  that  its  standards 

OF  DOCTRINE  REMAIN  UNALTERED. 

These  standards  are  found  in  the  Creeds,  and  the 
Thirty-nine  Articles.     Taken  together,  these  con- 
tain a  body  of  Christian  doctrine  as  sound  and 
scriptural  as  can  be  found  in  any  church  on  earth. 
They  are  the  inheritance  which  we  have  received 
from  our  fathers.     They  constitute  a  treasure  of 
truth  wrought  out  from   the  inexhaustible  mine 
of  God's  blessed  word,  by  the  labor  and  care  of 
successive  generations  of  earnest  and  devoted  men 
of  God.     This  treasure  comes  down  to  us  hallowed 
by  the  prayers  and  tears,  and  sealed  with  the  blood 
of  confessors  and  martyrs.     Many  of  the  saintliest 
men  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  has  ever  known, 
have  been  indebted  for  their  spiritual  birth  and 
growth,  for  all  their  usefulness  on  earth,  and  all 
their  preparation  for  glory  and  bliss  in  heaven,  to 
the  influence  and  power  of  the  truth  embodied  in 
these  standards.     And  the  truth  thus  enshrined, 
remains  to-day,  just  as  it  has  been  for  generations 
past,   unchanged    in   a    single    feature.     If  these 
standards  had  been  tampered  with — if  any  eff'orts 
had  been  successfully  made   to  cast   poison   into 
these  fountains,  so  that  the  streams  flowing  from 
them  were  thoroughly  corrupted,  then  it  would  be 


different.  The  instinct  of  self  preservation,  and 
every  consideration  for  the  honor  of  God,  and  the 
integrity  of  his  truth,  would  require  us  no  longer 
to  linger  by  the  side  of  streams  that  were  hope- 
lessly corrupt,  because  the  fountain  from  which 
they  sprung  had  been  poisoned.  But  this  is  not 
so.  No  one  can  call  in  question  this  declaration. 
That  there  are  difficulties  with  the  streams  we 
admit.  To  these  we  shall  refer  by  and  by;  but  the 
fountain  of  doctrine,  as  made  up  of  the  Creeds 
and  Articles  of  the  Church,  continues  pure. 

How  different  it  was  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  at 
the  time  of  the  Reformation !  Then  the  fountain 
from  which  all  the  streams  of  the  church's  teach- 
ing flowed  was  radically  corrupted.  The  Bible 
was  a  sealed  book.  The  creeds  remained  in  the 
church,  indeed,  but  no  open  Bible,  or  scriptural 
standard  was  allowed,  to  show  the  meaning  of  those 
creeds.  Tradition  was  their  sole  interpreter.  It 
was  not  what  God  said  about  them,  but  what  the 
Fathers  said,  which  was  to  be  taken  into  account. 
No  man  might  put  any  construction  upon  them, 
till  it  had  first  been  authorised  and  approved  by 
Cardinals  and  Councils,  by  Priests  and  Popes.  It 
was  this^  mainly,  which  led  to  the  Reformation. 
If  Martin  Luther,  and  the  reformers,  could  have 

had  such  a  standard  of  doctrine  as  we  have  in  the 

1* 


6 

Thirty-nine  Articles  of  our  Chnrch,  with  an  open 
Bible  from  which  to  defend  them — and  with  un- 
fettered liberty  in  the  proclamation  of  them,  not- 
withstanding the  monstrous  corruptions  which 
abounded  in  the  Church  of  Rome,  they  would  have 
lived,  and  labored,  and  died,  without  a  moment's 
thought  of  going  off  to  establish  a  reformed  church. 
The  fountain  from  which  the  church's  teaching 
then  flowed  was  poisoned  to  its  inmost  recesses. 

God  revealed  to  Luther  the  fountain  of  pure 
truth  in  the  Bible.  If  Luther  and  his  friends  had 
been  allowed  to  open  that  fountain,  close  by  the 
corrupted  one  that  was  sending  its  poisoned  water 
through  the  Romish  Church,  so  that  the  two  streams 
might  have  flowed  on  side  by  side,  they  would 
have  been  not  only  content,  but  perfectly  satisfied. 
They  would  have  remained  in  the  Church  wherein 
they  were  born.  But  they  were  not  allowed  to  do 
this.  The  mere  thought  of  it  caused  the  thunders 
of  the  Vatican  to  be  hurled  at  their  heads.  The 
resistless  arm  of  Papal  power  was  stretched  forth 
to  hinder  them  from  opening  the  fountain  of  living 
waters,  anywhere  within  the  limits  of  the  Church 
of  Rome.  It  was  nothing  but  this  which  took 
them  out  of  that  Church.  They  did  not  volun- 
tarily go  out,  they  were  driven  out.  And  if  Mar- 
tin Luther  were  here  to-day,  clearly  understanding 


the  state  of  things  in  this  troubled  Church  of  ours, 
I  feel  perfectly  assured  that  he  would  endorse  this 
first  point  of  my  argument,  and  say  to  evangelical 
men  everywhere,  "It  is  a  good  and  sufficient  reason 
why  you  should  not  leave  your  Church,  that  its 
doctrinal  standards  remain  pure  and  uncorrupted." 
Biit^  secondly^  evangelical  7nen  ought  not  to  leave 
the  Church  in  her  present  difficulties,  because  as 

FAITHFUL  SERVANTS  OF  ChRIST,  OUR  DUTY  REQUIRES 
US  NOT  TO  RUN  ATVAY  FROM  ERROR,  BUT  TO  STAND 
FIRM  IN  OUR  PLACE,  AND  MANFULLY  OPPOSE  IT. 

This  is  especially  true  of  the  7ninisters  in  the 
Church.  I  have  been  asked  a  score  of  times  or 
more,  since  this  new  movement  took  place,  why  I 
have  not  joined  if?  My  reply  to  this  is,  that  "I 
believe  I  was  inwardly  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost" 
to  enter  the  ministry  of  this  Church.  I  know  I 
have  never  been  so  moved  to  go  out  of  it;  and 
until  the  same  voice  which  called  me  into  the 
office  I  now  occupy  shall  bid  me  go  out  of  it,  I 
cannot  for  one  moment  think  of  doing  so. 

Before  his  admission  to  the  office  of  Presbyter 
in  this  Church,  every  minister  records  his  solemn 
vow  before  God,  that  "he  will  be  ready  with  all 
faithful  diligence  to  banish  and  drive  away  from 
the  Church  all  erroneous  and  strange  doctrines 
contrary  to  God's  word."     Now  this  vow  binds  me 


8 

to  duty  at  the  post  where  God  in  his  providence 
has  placed  me,  and  not  at  any  other  place  on  this 
round  earth  to  which  I  may  choose  to  go. 

But,  if  we  wish  to  oppose  error  successfully,  we 
must  not  run  away  from  it,  and  get  as  far  as  pos- 
sible out  of  its  reach ;  but  put  ourselves  in  the 
closest  contact  with  it;  we  must  stand  up  to  it, 
shoulder  to  shoulder,  and  foot  to  foot,  and  flash 
the  light  of  God's  blessed  truth,  clear  and  strong  on 
every  distorted  lineament  of  its  hideous  features. 
The  light  is  needed  most  where  darkness  is  the 
thickest.  Salt  is  of  no  use  in  places  where  there 
is  no  danger  of  corruption  and  decay.  Suppose 
that  you  and  I  were  entering  a  village  in  which  we 
knew  that  a  fatal  disease,  like  the  plague,  was  pre- 
vailing. A  little  distance  from  the  village  we 
meet  with  the  principal  physician  of  the  place. 
He  has  gathered  all  his  remedies  together,  and  is 
fleeing  from  the  disease-infected  district.  We 
ask  him  what  he  means  by  leaving  the  village] 
His  reply  is :  "I  have  been  struggling  with  the 
disease  as  long  as  I  thought  there  was  any  pros- 
pect of  success.  But  now  I  am  satisfied  that 
further  efl'ort  will  be  unavailing.  It  is  impossible 
to  make  headway  against  it,  and  so  I  am  going  to 
retire  to  some  healthy  position  where  I  shall  be 
beyond  the  reach  of  this  terrible  malady."     What 


9 

should  we  think  of  such  a  man  1  What  would  the 
brethren  of  his  profession — noble-minded,  high- 
toned  men  as  they  are — think  of  such  conduct '? 
Is  not  this  a  fair  illustration  of  the  case  we  are 
considering  ] 

Take  another  illustration.  Suppose  that  you 
and  I  are  officers  on  board  of  a  United  States 
frigate  on  a  voyage  round  the  world.  We  are 
bound  in  honor  to  protect  the  property  of  our 
government,  and  the  flag  which  represents  it.  In 
the  course  of  the  voyage  we  find  that  there  is  a 
mutiny  among  some  of  the  officers  and  crew. 
They  have  united  together  in  the  attempt  to  haul 
down  the  old  flag,  and  get  possession  of  the  vessel, 
and  either  run  her  ashore,  oT  hand  her  over  to  the 
enemies  of  our  government.  We  make  head 
against  the  mutineers  for  awhile;  but  not  succeed- 
ing to  our  satisfaction,  we  get  discouraged,  and 
resolve  to  give  up  the  contest;  or  rather  we  make 
up  our  minds  to  transfer  the  scene  of  our  further 
efforts  for  the  interest  and  honor  of  our  govern- 
ment. We  put  some  spare  spars  together  and  make 
a  raft ;  we  climb  over  the  side  of  the  vessel,  and 
leave  the  old  flag  to  be  hauled  down  by  the  muti- 
neers, and  the  vessel,  the  property  of  our  govern- 
ment we  leave  wholly  in  their  power.  We  may 
indeed  erect  a  pole  on  our  raft,  and  unfurl  the  flag 


10 

upon  it,  and  claim  still  to  be  faithful  to  it,  and  its 
interests.  But  is  it  so?  Let  us  put  this  question 
to  any  right-minded  officer  of  the  navy.  His  eye 
will  flash,  and  his  cheek  will  burn  with  honest 
indignation  at  the  mere  thought  of  such  a  thing. 
And  his  instant  earnest  response  will  be :  "  No ! 
No!  '' Don'' t give  up  the  ship!'*  Plant  yourselves 
on  her  quarter-deck,  beneath  '  the  star  spangled 
banner'  you  have  sworn  to  defend.  There  stand, 
and  fight  like  men.  And  if  you  must  fall — then 
fall  at  your  post — and  with  the  flag  of  your  coun- 
try still  waving  over  you." 

If  the  mutineers  overpower  us,  and  we  are 
driven  from  the  ship,  against  our  will,  and  by  a 
power  we  are  unable  to  resist,  then  the  fault  is  not 
ours.  But  as  faithful  servants  of  the  government 
that  has  sent  us  forth,  while  we  have  an  arm  to 
use,  or  an  energy  to  put  forth,  we  are  solemnly 
bound  to  use  that  arm,  and  put  forth  that  energy 
on  board  the  old  ship,  and  under  the  old  flag. 

And  just  so  it  should  be  with  evangelical  men 
in  their  relation  to  the  old  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church.  Faithfulness  to  our  Master  requires  us 
to  stand  up  manfully  at  the  posts  He  has  assigned 
us,  and  serve  Him  there  as  best  we  may.  In  the 
position  we  occupy  in  this  Church  we  have  an 
opportunity  of  delivering  our  testimony  to  God's 


11 

truth,  just  where  that  testimony  is  more  needed, 
and  where  it  will  be  more  effectual  for  good,  than 
in  any  other  place  we  could  occupy  on  the  face  of 
this  earth.  Here  we  can  contend  for  Episcopacy  as 
an  historical  fact,  while  denying  and  opposing  with 
all  our  might  the  arrogant,  and  exclusive  claims 
of  some  of  its  advocates.  There  is  one  short  arsfu- 
ment  that  quietly,  but  effectually  disposes  of  these 
claims.  It  is  this :  that  under  the  Jewish  dispen- 
sation, when  God  desired  to  have  an  exclusive 
priestly  succession  in  the  family  of  Aaron,  He 
made  His  will  so  plain  respecting  it,  by  statements 
both  positive  and  negative,  that  the  question  was 
settled,  beyond  dispute,  through  all  the  subse- 
quent history  of  that  nation.  And  if  God  had 
designed  that  there  should  be  in  the  Christian 
Church  a  similar  succession  from  the  Apostles, 
exclusive  and  actual.  He  could  have  made  His 
will  concerning  it  just  as  plain  and  clear  in  this 
case,  as  it  was  in  the  former.  He  did  this  in  the 
Jewish  Church  when  He  wanted  a  succession ;  and 
it  is  but  reasonable  to  suppose  that  He  would 
have  done  the  same  in  the  Christian  Church,  if 
He  had  desired  a  succession  here.  But  the  sio-- 
nificant,  and  undeniable  fact  is  that  He  has  not 
done  so.  The  inference  is  irresistible,  that  it  was 
not  His  will  there  should  be  any  such  succession. 


12 

Here  we  have  the  apostolical  succession  in  a  nut- 
shell. Yet  the  argument  is  one  that  cannot  be 
fairly  gainsaid  or  refuted.  And  there  is  no 
position  under  heaven  where  an  argument  like  this 
can  be  used  with  such  telling  power,  against  the 
error  it  is  designed  to  counteract,  as  that  which 
is  occupied  by  evangelical  men  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church.  Why  should  we  throw  away 
such  a  vantage  ground  for  opposing  error] 

And,  then,  in  our  position  in  this  Church  we 
can  contend  for  plain,  honest  tables,  instead  of 
altars  in  our  chancels.  We  can  denounce  and 
oppose  as  idolatrous,  the  practice  of  always  kneel- 
ing towards  the  communion  table,  as  though  the 
God  of  the  Christian  sanctuary  were  a  local  Deity, 
more  really  present  in  that  one  spot  than  any 
other  in  his  temple.  And  in  opposing  these  two 
dogmas,  we  are  opposing  two  of  the  most  fruitful 
sources  from  which  E,itualistic  error  springs,  with 
all  its  dangerous  practices.  And  the  place  in 
which  to  do  this  most  effectually,  is  not  in  any 
new  Church  organization,  but  in  the  old  Church. 
We  should  not  leave  our  place  in  this  old  Church, 
because  here,  better  than  anywhere  else,  we  can 
bear  our  testimony  against  the  prevailing  errors  of 
the  day,  and  aid  most  efficiently  in  spreading  abroad 
the  precious  truth  of  the  Gospel  of  the  Son  of  God. 


13 

Biit^  in  the  third  place,  we  should  not  leave  our 
Ijosition  in  this  old  Churchy  because  in  any  other 

NOW  EXISTING,  OR  ANY  LIKELY  TO  BE  ORGANIZED,  WE 
ARE  SURE  TO  FIND,  IN  ONE  FORM  OR  OTHER,  DIFFICULTIES 
QUITE  AS  GREAT  AS  THOSE  WHICH  WE  HAVE  NOW  TO  BEAR. 

No  form  of  Church  organization  is  given  us  in 
the  New  Testament.  All  those  now  existing  are 
of  human  origin.  They  bear  the  marks  of  human 
infirmity.  Imperfection,  in  one  form  or  other, 
clings  to  them  all.  We  never  shall  see  a  per- 
fect Church  on  earth  till  our  Lord  returns  from 
heaven  to  make  one.  In  each  of  the  denomina- 
tions around  us  I  could  readily  point  out  some- 
thing which  it  would  be  harder  far  for  me  to  bear 
than  anything  that  I  meet  with  in  my  own 
Church. 

And,  in  illustration  of  this  remark,  let  me  say 
that,  during  a  ministry  of  well  nigh  forty  years  in 
this  city,  I  have  had  ministerial  brethren  of  all 
the  leading  denominations — men  occupying  the 
very  first  positions  in  their  several  ecclesiastical 
bodies — and  men  of  the  highest  Christian  charac- 
ter, at  whose  feet  I  would  have  been  glad  to  take 
my  place  as  a  learner — I  say,  I  have  had  such 
brethren  come  to  me,  and,  in  the  sacred  confidence 
of  fraternal  Christian  fellowship,  speak  sorrowfully, 
each  one  for  himself,  of  some  peculiar  burden, 
2 


14 

under  which  he  groaned  in  his  own  denomina- 
tion, and  express  the  earnest,  longing  wish  that 
the  way  had  been  open  for  him  to  transfer  his 
ecclesiastical  relations,  and  spend  the  rest  of  his 
days  among  the  evangelical  clergy  of  the  Protes- 
tant Episcopal  Church.  This  is  a  very  significant 
fact,  but  it  is  a  fact. 

If  I  were  permitted  to  make  a  Church  that 
would  be,  in  every  particular,  just  what  I  should 
desire  to  have  it,  no  doubt  I  should  be  able  to 
please  myself  exactly.  But  then,  the  Church 
that  suited  me  so  completely  would  probably  not 
suit  my  neighbor  at  all ;  and  if  he,  in  turn, 
should  mould  and  make  a  Church  just  to  please 
himself,  you  and  I  would  be  very  apt  to  find 
some  grave  objections  in  that  which  he  esteemed 
to  be  about  perfect. 

In  the  accounts,  which  the  papers  recently  fur- 
nished, of  the  revision  of  the  Prayer- Book  by  the 
Council  of  the  Reformed  Church  in  New  York, 
it  would  be  difficult  to  find  two  persons  who 
would  entirely  agree  about  any  of  the  alterations 
proposed  and  efi'ected  there,  unless,  perhaps,  it 
might  be  as  to  the  omission  of  the  word  "  regen- 
erate" in  the  service  for  infant  baptism.  This  is 
a  consideration  of  great  moment.  Certainly  it 
should  "  give  us  pause ;  and    lead    us    rather    to 


15 

bear  the  ills  we  have,  than  flee  to  others  that  we 
know  not  of." 

In  the  fourth  place^  evanc/elical  men  ought  not  to 
leave  their  position  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  BECAUSE  of  the  liberty  which  they  here 

ENJOY. 

This  is  the  most  important  reason  bearing  on 
this  subject,  and  the  one  that  is  least  understood. 
There  is  no  man  in  this  land,  or  in  any  other  on 
which  the  sun  shines,  who  has  more  unfettered 
freedom  to  preach  the  precious  gospel  of  Jesus,  in 
all  its  simplicity  and  fulness,  than  every  minister 
has  in  this  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of  ours. 
If  Luther,  or  the  Reformers,  had  possessed  a  tithe 
of  such  liberty,  they  never  would  have  dreamed  of 
establishing  a  reformation  outside  of  the  Church 
in  which  they  were  born  and  brought  up.  This 
liberty  of  preaching  no  one  can  deny  or  call  in 
question.  But  our  brethren  who  have  joined  the 
Reformed  Church  say,  "  Yes,  this  is  true  ;  liberty 
of  preaching  you  have ;  but  we  want  liberty  in 
other  things,  which  is  denied  to  us."  Let  us 
look  at  these. 

"  We  want,"  say  these  brethren,  "  the  liberty 
of  freely  acknowledging  the  ministry  of  other  de- 
nominations as  valid  and  true."  Now,  as  a  mat- 
ter of  doctrine,  we  have  this  liberty  to  its  fullest 


16 

extent.  In  the  preface  to  the  Prayer-Book  "  the 
different  religious  denominations  of  Christians" 
are  distinctly  spoken  of  as  constituting  "their 
respective  Churches."  Thus,  at  the  very  opening 
of  the  Prayer-Book,  we  find  an  acknowledgment 
of  other  Churches  than  our  own.  But,  according 
to  the  teachings  of  this  very  book,  as  elsewhere 
given,  there  cannot  be  a  Church  where  there  is 
not  a  valid  ministry,  and  duly  administered  sacra- 
ments ;  so  that,  in  admitting  the  existence  of 
"  other  Churches,"  we  are  fairly  warranted  in 
maintaining  that  the  Prayer-Book  admits  the 
validity  of  the  ministry  and  sacraments  as  found 
in  those  Churches.  This  is  an  honest,  fair,  logi- 
cal deduction,  and  the  force  of  it  cannot  be  con- 
troverted. 

And  then  look  at  the  23d  Article  of  this 
Church.  This  refers  to  the  ordination  of  minis- 
ters. It  declares  that  no  man  is  to  be  allowed  to 
take  upon  him  the  office  of  a  minister  until  he 
be  "lawfully  called  and  sent  to  execute  the  same." 
And  then  it  goes  on  to  define  what  ordination  is, 
in  general,  in  these  words:  ^'  And  those  we  ought 
to  judije  lawfully  called  and  sent^  who  he  chosen  and 
called  to  this  ivork,  hy  men  who  have  public  authority 
given  unto  them  in  the  congregation  to  call  and  send 
ministers  into  the  Lord's  vineyard.^'' 


17 

Now  bear  in  mind  that  these  Articles  are  the 
highest  source  of  authority  in  matters  of  doctrine, 
in  our  Church,  outside  of  the  Bible.  It  is  through 
the  Articles  that  the  voice  of  the  Church  is  heard 
speaking  in  the  most  authoritative  and  majestic 
tones.  And  here  the  Church  defines  what  ordi- 
nation is  without  the  mention  of  Bishops  or  Episco- 
pacy^  or  an  apostolical  succession. 

Bishop  Burnet,  whose  work  on  the  Articles  is  of 
the  highest  authority,  on  this  subject,  both  in  this 
country  and  in  England,  expressly  says,  when  com- 
menting on  this  23d  Article,  that  the  peculiar 
phraseology  of  it  was  employed  on  purpose,  so  as 
not  to  exclude  the  Reformers  on  the  Continent,  who 
had  not  received  episcopal  ordination.  Thus,  both 
the  history  of  this  Article,  and  the  express  language 
of  it  combine  to  settle  the  teaching  of  our  Church 
on  this  subject.  The  highest  doctrinal  authority 
in  the  Church  declares  the  validity  of  non-episco- 
pal orders.  It  is  clear  from  this  showing  that 
evangelical  men,  with  liberal  views  of  the  minis- 
try, are  the  only  true  exponents  of  the  standard 
teaching  of  our  Church  in  the  matter  of  orders ; 
and  that  the  men  who  deny  the  validity  of  rion^ 
episcopal  orders  are  really  and  truly  not  in  con- 
formity  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Protestant  Episco- 
pal Church  on  this  subject. 


18 

Bishop  Hopkins,  of  Vermont,  in  his  reply  to 
Milner,  author  of  "  The  End  of  Controversy,"  vol. 
2,  p.  3,  says  : — 

"  Dr.  Mihier  asserts  that  the  Church  of  England 
unchurches  all  other  Protestant  communities  which 
are  without  the  succession  of  Bishops ;  whereas, 
not  only  Hooker,  whom  he  quotes,  but  all  the  Re- 
formers, with  Jewell,  Andrews,  Usher,  Bramall, 
and,  in  a  word,  the  whole  of  our  standard  divines, 
agree  in  maintaining  that  Episcopacy  is  not  ne- 
cessary to  the  being,  but  only  to  the  well-being  of 
the  Church;  and  they  grant  the  name  of  Churches 
to  all  denominations  of  Christians  who  hold  the 
fundamental  doctrines  of  the  Gospel,  notwith- 
standing the  imperfection  and  irregularity  of  their 
ministry." 

Dr.  C.  H.  Wharton,  of  Burlington,  New  Jersey, 
one  of  the  chief  revisers  of  the  Amer.  Prayer-Book, 
says : — 

''  The  pretence  of  tracing  up  the  Eoman  Church 
to  the  times  of  the  Apostles,  is  grounded  on  mere 
sophistry.  The  succession  which  the  Boman  Ca- 
tholics unfairly  ascribe  to  their  own  Church  be- 
longs to  every  other,  and  exclusively  to  none.  But 
that  portion  of  the  Christian  Church  is  best  enti- 
tled to  this  claim  which  teaches  in  the  greatest 
purity  the  doctrine  of  the  Apostles."    St.  Ambrose 


19 

says,  "  They  have  not  the  inheritance  of  Peter,  who 
have  not  Peter's  faith,"  vol.  2,  p.  213, 

Archbishop  Musgrave,  of  York,  in  1842,  says 
in  his  charge:  "You  would  exceed  all  just  bounds, 
if  you  insist  on  the  Apostolical  succession  as  the 
only  security  for  the  efficiency  of  the  sacraments, 
so  that  those  who  do  not  receive  them  from  men 
so  accredited,  are  left  to  uncovenanted  mercy. 
This  would  be  to  set  up  a  claim  which  neither 
Scripture  nor  the  formularies  and  various  offices  of 
our  Church,  nor  the  writings  of  her  best  divines, 
nor  the  common-sense  of  mankind  will  allow.  The 
being  and  the  well-being  of  a  Church  is  a  wide 
distinction,  which  good  sense  and  Christian  charity 
should  ever  keep  in  sight." — Gallagher's  Iren- 

ICON. 

But  it  may  be  said  that  in  the  preface  to  the 
Ordinal,  when  about  to  make  provision  for  the 
ordination  of  her  own  ministers,  our  Church  takes 
different  ground  from  this.  Here  she  affirms  the 
fact  of  an  historical  Episcopacy.  She  maintains 
that  a  threefold  order  of  the  ministry  has  always 
existed,  and  she  provides  that  no  other  ministers 
than  those  of  this  order  shall  be  received  as  regu- 
lar ministers  "  in  this  Church.'^  But  then  there  is 
no  conflict,  or  contradiction  between  the  Ordinal 


20 

and  the  Article  here.  The  Article  gives  the  defi- 
nition of  ordination  in  general,  as  held  by  the 
founders  of  our  Church ;  while  the  Ordinal  only 
prescribes  the  particular  form  of  ordination  which 
"  this  Church'^  prefers  to  have  established  within 
her  own  borders.  I  can  plant  myself,  honestly 
and  squarely  on  the  ground  of  this  23d  Article, 
and  proclaim  of  every  Presbyterian,  Methodist, 
Baptist,  Lutheran,  or  other  minister  in  this  land, 
who  has  been  "  chosen  and  called  to  this  work  by 
men  who  have  public  authority  given  unto  them 
in  the  congregation  to  call  and  send  ministers 
into  the  Lord's  vineyard,"  that  he  is  a  true  and 
valid  minister  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  And  I 
can  proclaim  this,  not  as  my  individual  opinion, 
but  as  the  teaching  of  the  highest  doctrinal  au- 
thority in  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  in 
these  United  States.  Surely  this  is  liberty  enough 
in  reference  to  the  acknowledgment  of  the  validity 
of  ministers  in  other  denominations. 

But  it  is  said,  "  Yes,  this  is  so ;  yet  we  wish 
for  more  liberty  in  regard  to  our  intercourse  with 
our  ministerial  brethren  of  other  Churches.  Our 
liberty,  in  this  respect,  is  too  much  restricted  by 
the  canon  which  prohibits  any  but  espiscopally 
ordained  ministers  from  ever  officiating  in  our 
Church." 


21 

This  is  undoubtedly  the  operation  of  Canon  XI., 
Tit.  I.  I  regret,  as  much  as  any  one  can,  the 
existence  of  this  canon.  I  have  protested  against 
it  from  the  day  of  its  enactment.  I  shall  continue 
to  protest  against  it  till  I  die,  or  till  it  is  re- 
pealed, which  I  am  just  as  sure  will  eventually  be 
the  case  as  I  am  sure  that  "  truth  is  mighty,  and 
must  prevail"  in  the  end.  But  still,  as  a  law- 
abiding,  order-loving  man,  I  submit  to  the  canon. 
And  I  do  so  with  the  less  regret  because  every 
one  knows  that  a  canon  teaches  no  doctrine.  All 
that  it  can  do  is  to  prescribe  some  rule  of  order 
or  discipline.  And  that  is  the  whole  effect  of 
this  narrow  and  unchristian  canon  of  which  we 
are  now  speaking.  It  leaves  all  uncontradicted 
and  uncontrolled  the  grand,  broad,  scriptural 
teaching  of  the  23d  Article,  the  highest  doctrinal 
authority  in  our  Church  on  the  subject  of  a  valid 
ministry. 

But  it  is  said,  again,  that  evangelical  men 
ought  to  go  out  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  because,  while  reasonable  liberty  is  denied 
to  them,  the  most  unreasonable  liberty  is  allowed 
to  Ritualists  and  Romanists  to  do  as  they  please ; 
and  that  the  only  way  to  get  rid  of  the  responsi- 
bility of  seeming  to  sustain  these  growing  errors 
is  to  separate  from  them. 


22 

That  the  growth  of  error  in  this  direction  has 
been  fearful  of  late  years  cannot  be  denied ;  that 
something  should  be  done  to  check  the  progress 
of  this  error  all  must  admit.  Just  what  is  the 
best  and  wisest  way  of  doing  it  is  not  so  easy  to 
say.  We  may  well  pray,  in  the  language  of  the 
Collect,  that,  in  reference  to  this  matter,  God 
may  give  to  the  members  of  the  approaching 
General  Convention  "a  right  judgment  in  all 
things;  that  they  may  both  perceive  and  know 
what  things  they  ought  to  do,  and  also  may  have 
grace  and  power  faithfully  to  perform  the  same." 
Ritualism  must  and  will  be  restrained,  or  else  we 
must  alter  our  title  as  a  Protestant  Church. 

But  I  wish  to  say  a  word  or  two,  under  this 
branch  of  our  subject,  in  relation  to  the  question 
of  individual  responsibility  as  to  the  prevalence 
of  the  errors  in  question. 

Most  of  those  who  have  joined  the  new  Church 
have  had  much  to  say  about  the  burden  of  re- 
sponsibility which  they  have  felt  on  this  subject. 
Now  there  are  two  mistakes  which  these  brethren 
have  made.  When  we  do  our  duty  in  faithfully 
setting  forth  the  truth,  it  is  a  mistake  to  suppose 
that  God  will  hold  us  responsible  for  the  growth 
of  error  over  which  we  have  no  control.     God  is 


I 


23 

•  not  a  hard  master.  He  does  not  deal  with  men 
in  any  such  way  as  this.  No  one  can  deplore 
the  growth  of  ritualist  errors  in  our  Church  more 
earnestly  than  I  do.  But,  while  doing  all  I  hon- 
estly can  to  oppose  these  errors,  I  feel  perfectly 
assured  that  not  a  feather's  weight  of  responsi- 
bility rests  with  me  in  reference  to  them. 

The  other  mistake,  which  these  brethren  make 
in  deserting  their  old  Church,  is  in  imagining  that 
Avhat  God  requires  of  them  is  to  escape  from  the 
presence  of  error,  rather  than  to  stand  up  in  manly 
opposition  to  it.  But  this  is  not  so.  Does  a  gen- 
eral send  his  soldiers  into  the  field  for  the  purpose 
of  looking  around,  and  finding  for  themselves  snug 
quarters  where  they  can  settle  down  in  peace,  and 
have  a  good,  quiet  time,  away  from  the  inconve- 
nience and  annoyance  connected  with  the  presence 
of  their  enemies'?  No.  But  he  sends  them  there 
for  the  very  purpose  of  finding  out  where  the 
enemy  has  entrenched  himself  in  the  greatest 
strength.  Just  there  he  would  have  his  soldiers 
plant  themselves.  Just  there  he  would  have  them 
charge  upon  the  foe,  and  shower  blows  upon  them 
thick  and  fast,  and  keep  on  doing  so  to  the  end  of  the 
contest.  If  the  fact  of  being  in  the  same  Church 
with  errorists  makes  me  responsible  for  their 
errors,  the  fact  of  being  in  the  same  community 


24 

with  them  must  do  so  too.  If  I  must  leave  my 
Church  on  this  ground,  then  I  must  leave  the 
city  where  they  dwell — the  country,  and  the  world 
in  which  they  are  found,  and  what  will  be  the  end 
of  it  1  If  we  are  responsible  for  their  errors  be- 
cause the  same  Church  organization  embraces  us, 
then  we  must  be  equally  responsible  because  we 
tread  the  same  earth,  and  breathe  the  same  air,  and 
are  warmed  by  the  same  sun,  and  have  the  same 
broad  arch  of  heaven  stretching  its  beautiful  blue 
canopy  over  us.  There  is  no  truth  or  reality  in 
any  such  idea. 

But  after  all  the  greatest  practical  difficulty  ex- 
perienced by  those  who  have  gone  out  from  us 
into  the  Reformed  Church,  remains  yet  to  be 
noticed.  It  is  the  use  of  the  word  "regenerate" 
in  the  service  for  Infant  Baptism.  There  is 
probably  not  an  individual — among  the  clergy,  at 
least — of  those  who  have  joined  the  new  Church, 
w^ho  has  not  been  impelled  to  take  this  course  by 
the  burden  put  upon  his  conscience  in  the  use  of 
this  phrase.  And  this  is  no  new  difficulty;  but 
one  of  old  standing.  The  experience  of  genera- 
tions has  proved  that  it  is  just  here  that  the  har- 
ness of  the  Church's  service  has  always  galled  the 
most.  Many  indeed  have  worked  in  this  harness 
without  the  experience  of  any  difficulty.     But  the 


25 

six  or  eight  different  views  which  other  good  men 
have  attempted  to  put  upon  this  service,  bear  sad 
and  solemn  witness  to  the  agony  of  conscience 
under  which  they  have  gone  writhing  in  their 
efforts  to  find  some  relief  in  the  use  of  this  word. 
And  there  are  numbers  of  earnest  and  faithful  men, 
all  over  the  Church  now,  who  are  only  enabled  to 
remain  at  their  posts,  and  go  on  with  their  work, 
by  ceasing  to  use  this  word. 

And  I  argue  that  evangelical  men  should  not 
leave  the  old  Church  because  they  have  a  right  to 
exercise  this  liberty.  I  argue  this  right  on  four 
grounds : — 

In  the  first  place  there  is  no  law  in  the  Prostestant 
Episcopal  Churchy  in  this  country,  binding  the  clergy 
to  a  literal  and  verbal  use  of  all  the  offices  of  the 
Church.  It  was  very  different  in  the  Church  of 
England.  Here,  in  the  year  1662,  what  is  known 
as  "  The  Act  of  Uniformity,"  was  established. 
This  Act  prescribed  as  follows: — 

"  That  every  beneficed  clergyman  shall  declare 
his  unfeigned  assent  and  consent  to  the  use  of  all 
things  in  the  said  book  contained  and  prescribed, 
in  these  words,  and  in  no  other:" — 

"  I,  A.  B.,  do  hereby  declare  my  unfeigned  as- 
sent and  consent  to  all  and  everything  contained 
3 


26 

and  prescribed  in  the  book  entitled  the  Book  of 
Common  Prayer." 

Now,  the  natural  effect  of  such  a  law  as  this 
would  be  to  give  a  cast-iron  rigidity  to  the  use  of 
all  the  services  of  the  Church,  where  it  was  in 
operation.  The  omission  of  any  word,  or  sentence, 
in  any  offices  of  the  Church  would  be  a  sin,  be- 
cause it  would  be  "  the  transgression  of  a  law" 
which  the  clergyman  had  solemnly  bound  himself 
to  keep.  And  if  this  "Act  of  Uniformity"  had 
ever  been  adopted  in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  in  this  country,  or  if  anything  of  a  similar 
nature  had  ever  been  adopted  instead' of  it,  then  it 
would  have  been  wrong:  for  anv  minister  to  omit  a 
single  word  or  sentence  from  any  office  of  the 
Prayer  Book.  But  this  is  not  the  case.  There  is 
no  such  law  ;  and  where  there  is  no  law,  there  can 
be  no  transgression.  The  existence  for  genera- 
tions in  the  Church  of  England  of  a  law  like  this 
Act  of  Uniformity,  would  naturally  and  neces- 
sarily give  rise  to  the  feeling  that  it  was  a  wrong 
thing,  a  breach  of  law,  to  omit  any  word  in  the 
Prayer-Book.  And  when  the  Prayer-Book  came 
into  use  in  this  country,  the  same  feeling  would 
naturally  be  connected  with  it.  It  was  the  at- 
mosphere which  had  gathered  round  it,  and  came 
with  it.     But  the  thing  for  us  to  remember  is  that 


27 

the  law  which  there  required  this  strict,  unbend- 
ing uniformity  in  the  verbal  use  of  the  Prayer- 
Book  is  not  a  law  with  us,  and  therefore,  that 
which  would  have  been  an  offence  to  those  bound 
by  this  law,  is  no  offence  at  all  where  this  law  does 
not  exist.  This  is  the  first  point  in  the  argument 
for  the  liberty  now  asserted. 

In  the  second  place  the  only  oblicfation  by  which 
any  minister  of  this  Church  hinds  himself  to  the  use 
of  the  Prayer-Book  is  the  Declaration  which  he  signs 
at  the  tifne  of  his  ordination.  This  declaration  is 
in  these  words : — 

"  I  do  believe  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testament  to  be  the  Word  of  God,  and 
to  contain  all  things  necessary  to  salvation ;  and  I 
do  solemnly  engage  to  conform  to  the  Doctrines 
and  Worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church 
in  the  United  States." 

This  is  the  only  restraining  law,  that  exists  in 
the  Episcopal  Church  in  this  country,  to  govern 
ministers  in  the  use  of  the  Prayer- Book.  This  is 
all  that  we  have  here  in  place  of  the  "  xlct  of 
Uniformity"  that  was  so  long  the  law  of  the  Church 
of  England.  But  the  poles  of  the  earth  are  not 
wider  apart  than  are  the  requirements  of  that  un- 
bending, adamantine,  and  monstrously  oppressive 
"  Act  of  Uniformity,"  on  the  one  hand,  and  those 


28 

of  this  simple,  sensible,  general,  flexible,  and 
most  liberal  declaration  which  our  Church  re- 
quires of  her  ministers,  on  the  other.  Conformity 
to  the  Doctrines  and  Worship  of  the  Church — 
this  is  all  to  which  any  minister  of  this  Church 
has  pledged  himself.  This  is  the  extent  to  which 
the  law  reaches  by  which  he  is  bound.  But  he 
conforms  to  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  so  long  as 
his  teachings  are  in  harmony  with  the  Creeds  and 
Articles  of  the  Church.  He  conforms  to  the 
worship  of  the  Church  so  long  as  he  uses,  on  the 
stated  occasions  of  public  service  in  the  sanctuary, 
the  order  of  worship  which  this  Church  has  ap- 
pointed. Honestly  and  fairly  interpreted,  this  is 
all  to  which  the  declaration  in  question  hinds  a  min- 
ister^ and  therefore  this  is  all  for  which  he  can 
justly  be  held  responsible. 

This  is  the  second  point  in  the  argument  for  the 
liberty  here  claimed. 

In  the  third  place,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it  is  a 
simple,  but  iindeniahle  truth,  that  a  liberty  of  this 
kind  has  always  been  allowed  in  this  Church. 

I  refer,  in  proof  of  this  statement,  to  the  general 
practice  in  regard  to  the  use  of  the  Office  for  the 
Visitation  of  the  sick.  This  is  one  of  the  appointed 
"  occasional  offices"  of  this  Church,  just  as  the 
office  for  Infant  Baptism  is.     They  are  found  side 


29 

by  side  in  the  Prayer-Book,  among  its  occasional 
offices.  The  Rubrics  are  as  absolute  and  peremp- 
tory in  the  one  office  as  in  the  other.  They  both 
stand  on  the  same  ground  of  obligation ;  the 
authority  which  requires  me  to  use  the  office  for 
the  visitation  of  the  sick  is  precisely  the  same 
authority  which  requires  me  to  use  the  office  for 
the  baptism  of  infants.  It  is  neither  more  nor 
less  in  the  one  case  than  in  the  other;  vet  I  have 
never  used  the  office  for  the  visitation  of  the  sick 
as  it  stands  in  the  Prayer-Book,  in  the  whole 
course  of  my  ministry,  and  I  never  expect  to  do 
so.  I  have  occasionally  used  some  of  the  beau- 
tiful prayers  in  that  service,  and  been  thankful 
for  them ;  but  as  for  the  rest  of  that  office  /  ha\^e 
always  omitted  it.  And  this  I  presume  has  been,  in 
substance,  the  practice  of  every  minister  in  this 
Church,  from  the  oldest  bishop  to  the  youngest 
deacon;  and  yet  no  one  has  ever  thought  of  asking 
the  authority  of  the  General  Convention  for  liberty 
to  make  omissions  in  that  service.  And  nobody 
ever  dreams  that  the  men,  who  are  doing  this  all 
the  time,  are  failing  in  their  duty,  and  breaking 
the  law  which  binds  them  to  conformity  with  the 
worship  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church.  Now, 
if  a  man,  without  any  failure  of  duty  or  breach  of 
law,  may  omit  the  whole,  or  the  greater  part,  of 

8^ 


30 

one  of  the  occasional  offices  of.  the  Church,  then 
surely  he  cannot  be  chargeable  with  failure  of 
duty,  or  breach  of  law,  for  omitting  a  single  phrase^ 
or  sentence^  in  another  of  these  offices.  Where 
the  liberty  exists  to  do  the  greater  thing,  the  liberty 
to  do  the  less  must  exist  also. 

But  the  fourth  point  in  this  argument  is  the 
strongest  and  most  conclusive  of  all,  viz.,  that  every 
minister  is  hound  to  the  exercise  of  just  such  a 
liberty  as  this  hy  his  ordination  vow. 

When  I  was  admitted  to  the  office  of  Presbyter 
in  this  Church,  the  Bishop  proposed  to  me  these 
questions :  "  Are  you  persuaded  that  the  Holy 
Scriptures  contain  all  doctrine  required  as  neces- 
sary for  eternal  salvation"?  And  are  you  deter- 
mined, out  of  the  said  Scriptures,  to  instruct  the 
people  committed  to  your  charge,  and  to  teach 
nothing  as  necessary  to  eternal  salvation  but  that 
which  you  shall  be  persuaded  may  be  concluded 
and  proved  by  the  Scriptures  T' 

To  these  questions  the  answer  given  was : — 

"  I  a7n  so  persuaded,  and  have  so  determined  by 
the  grace  of  God." 

Now,  in  this  part  of  the  ordination  service  this 
Church  puts  an  open  Bible,  into  the  hands  of  every 
man  who  enters  her  ministry,  and  solemnly  swears 
him  to  the  exercise  of  his  own  private  judgment, 


81 

on  the  truths  of  that  book,  as  the  rule  by  which  he 
is  to  be  guided  in  all  that  he  teaches.  If  any 
should  argue  that  this  only  refers  to  the  sermons 
the  minister  may  preach  from  the  pulpit,  but  that 
it  cannot  be  intended  to  apply  to  the  language 
which  the  Church  has  introduced  into  her  own 
services,  I  answer  that  ii  preaching  were  the  word 
here  used,  there  would  be  force  in  this  argument ; 
but  it  is  not  so.  It  runs  thus :  "  Are  you  deter- 
mined to  teach  nothing  but  that  which  you  shall 
be  persuaded  may  be  concluded  and  proved  by 
Scripture."  This  ordination  vow,  therefore,  throws 
the  minister  back  upon  his  own  conscience,  en- 
lightened by  the  Scriptures,  as  the  rule  by  which 
he  is  to  be  guided  in  all  the  language  he  employs 
in  teaching  the  people,  whether  it  be  in  the  ser- 
mons he  preaches,  or  the  services  that  he  performs 
in  other  parts  of  his  public  duty.  It  must  neces- 
sarily mean  this.  To  deny  it,  is  to  suppose  that 
the  Church  intended  to  bind  a  solemn  vow  on  the 
consciences  of  her  ministers,  which  must  place 
them,  at  times,  in  the  most  painful  and  trying 
dilemmas. 

For  example,  suppose  that  I  stand  in  my  place 
in  the  pulpit,  and  preach  to  my  people  on  some 
such  text  as  this :  "  Of  his  own  will  begat  He  us 
by  the  word  of  truth."     I  show  from  these  words 


32 

that  the  subject  here  treated  of,  is  that  of  the 
soul's  conversion,  or,  of  spiritual  regeneration,  and 
that  the  instrument  which  God  has  ordained  for 
the  accomplishment  of  this  work  is  the  word  of 
truth. 

After  this  service  is  over  I  go  to  the  font  and 
baptise  a  child.  The  baptism  is  completed.  Then 
I  stand  up  and  say, ''  seeing  now  that  this  child  is 
regenerated,  etc.;"  and  then  engaging  in  prayer,  I 
say,  "  We  yield  Thee  hearty  thanks,  most  merciful 
Father,  that  it  hath  pleased  Thee  to  regene- 
rate this  child  by  Thy  Holy  Spirit,  etc."  At  the 
conclusion  of  this  service  an  intelligent  member 
of  my  congregation  comes  up  to  me  and  says,  "I 
am  greatly  perplexed  in  regard  to  this  matter  of 
spiritual  regeneration.  In  the  pulpit  you  teach 
me  one  thing  about  it  from  the  Bible ;  and  then 
at  the  font  you  give  me  entirely  different  teaching 
about  it  from  the  Prayer-Book.  Which  of  these 
two  teachings  must  I  believed" 

This  is  a  very  serious  dilemma  to  be  placed  in. 
I  find  I  am  teaching  my  people  in  the  pulpit  one 
thing  about  spiritual  regeneration  which  "  I  am 
persuaded  can  be  proved  from  Scripture;"  and 
then,  at  the  font,  I  am  teaching  them  another 
thing  about  it  which  I  am  persuaded  cannot  be 
proved  from   Scripture.     Yet  there  is  that  solemn 


33 

vow  staring  me  in  the  face  all  the  while ;  what 
must  I  do  1  I  must  omit  the  word  regenerate, 
because  whatever  construction  I  may  put  upon  it 
in  my  own  mind — and  there  is  no  difficulty  in 
doing  this  satisfactorily — yet  experience  proves 
that  the  word  cannot  be  used  without  the  danger 
of  teaching  what  I  am  persuaded  cannot  be  proved 
from  Scripture.  My  ordination  vow  compels  me  to 
do  this ;  while  the  declaration  which  I  have  signed^ 
of  conformity  to  the  worship  of  this  Churchy  does 
not^  in  any  fair^  and  honest  interpretation^  inter- 
fere with  my  doing  it. 

This  is  my  argument  for  the  liberty  here  claimed 
in  regard  to  the  baptismal  service.  I  believe  it 
to  be  a  perfectly  sound  and  logical  argument ;  and 
this  being  so,  it  follows  necessarily,  that  the  liberty 
here  claimed  is  an  inherent  and  inalienable  liberty. 
I  cannot  ask  the  General  Convention  to  grant  this 
liberty,  because  it  already  belongs,  of  right,  to  all 
who  feel  called  upon  to  exercise  it.  I  do  not  say 
this  in  any  factious  or  rebellious  spirit ;  I  claim  to 
be  a  thoroughly  law-abiding,  order-loving  minister 
of  the  Church  to  which  I  belong.  I  only  wish  to 
get  down  to  the  solid  rock,  on  which  the  law  of 
liberty  legitimately  rests ;  I  believe,  honestly  be- 
fore God,  that  the  argument  here  used  places  this 
law  fairly  on  that  rock. 


34 

But,  it  may  be  said  that,  in  some  parts  of  the 
Church,  the  man  who  takes  this  ground  would  be 
presented  for  trial.  Very  well,  suppose  that  such 
should  be  the  case.  A  presents  B  for  trial,  because 
he  omits  a  word,  or  sentence,  in  one  of  the  offices 
of  the  Church.  What  is  to  prevent  B  from  turn- 
ing round,  and  presenting  A  in  turn  for  trial,  on 
the  ground  that  he  omits  the  whole,  or  the  greater 
part,  of  another  of  the  Church's  offices;  and  when- 
A  shows  where  he  gets  his  authority  for  the  larger 
omission,  B  will  not  have  far  to  go  for  his 
authority  for  the  smaller  omission.  Now  A  and 
B,  we  suppose,  are  both  on  trial.  In  conducting 
their  trial  they  ask — what  of  course  would  be 
too  reasonable  to  be  denied — that  the  principle 
which  our  blessed  Lord  laid  down  be  applied 
to  their  case,  when  He  said,  "Let  him  that 
is  without  sin  among  you,"  i.  e.,  a  similar  sin  of 
omission,  "cast  the  first  stone  at  them;"  and  if 
you  travel  through  the  Church,  from  one  end  of  it 
to  the  other,  you  will  not  find  one  man,  who,  on 
this  principle,  will  be  competent  to  engage  in  try- 
ing A  and  B;  not  one  who  can  lay  his  hand  on 
his  breast  and  say  honestly  before  God,  "  I  never 
have  omitted  as  much,  from  any  office  of  the 
Church,  as  these  two  brethren  are  charged  with 
omitting,  and  I  here  solemnly  promise  that  I  never 


35 

will  do  so."  No  man  living  in  the  Church  can 
say  this.  And  how,  then  will  this  matter  end] 
It  will  soon  end,  in  such  an  understanding  of  the 
real  merits  of  the  case,  that  we  shall  all  come  to 
see,  that  no  choice  is  left  us,  between  going  back 
to  the  old  English  law  of  unbending  uniformity, 
on  the  one  hand,  or  freely  admitting  the  law  of 
liberty  here  contended  for,  on  the  other. 

It  may  be  objected  again  that  the  admission  of 
such  a  principle  as  this  would  lead  to  confusion 
and  disorder,  and  mar  the  harmony  of  our  worship. 

The  natural  reply  here  is,  that  this  principle 
has  already  been  admitted,  and  acted  on,  in  refer- 
ence to  one  of  the  offices  of  the  Church,  and  no 
such  evil  has  arisen  from  it.  And  so  it  would  be 
here.  Suppose,  for  example,  that  some  minister  is 
found  omitting  one  or  more  of  the  opening  sen- 
tences of  the  Litany,  refering  to  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity:  could  he  plead  the  principle  nov^^  con- 
tended for,  to  justify  ?iim  in  that  course '?  Certainly 
not.  For  in  such  omission  he  fails  of  conformity 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  Church ;  and  if  he  cannot 
conform  to  that  doctrine  he  must  leave  the  Church. 
And  so  with  any  other  word  or  sentence  that 
touches  the  doctrine  of  the  Church.  It  is  clear 
that  we  can  admit  the  operation  of  the  principle 
of  liberty  here  refered  to,  and  yet  have  all  the 


•      36 

safeguard  that  is  needed,  in  the  law  which  binds 
us  to  conformity  with  the  doctrines  and  worship 
of  the  Church.  A  liberty  which  interferes  with 
these  cannot  be  allowed.  The  liberty  which  leaves 
these  untouched  is  already  granted^  and  cannot  he 
withdrawn. 

And  so  I  say  that  evangelical  men  ought  not  to 
leave  the  Church,  because  of  the  liberty  which 
they  have  in  it. 

But,  lastly,  I  maintain  that  evangelical  men  should 
not  leave  the  old  Church,  because  the  multiplication 

OF  DENOMINATIONS  IS  AN  EVIL  SO  GREAT,  AND  GRIEV- 
OUS THAT  NOTHING  CAN  JUSTIFY  IT,  BUT  THE  MOST  AB- 
SOLUTE NECESSITY. 

It  leads  to  strife  and  contention,  and  bitterness 
and  wrath,  and  a  train  of  endless  evils.  These 
evils  are  not  felt  so  much  in  our  large  cities.  But 
they  are  seen  and  felt,  with  all  their  sad  results,  in 
the  smaller  towns  and  villages  of  our  country. 
Every  Christian  man,  who  has  lived  in  one  of  these 
places,  has  been  made  to  mourn  in  real,  heartfelt 
sorrow,  over  the  manifold  evils  that  spring  out  of 
the  numerous,  and  unnecessary  different  Church 
organizations,  that  are  struggling  for  a  precarious 
existence  there.  And  shall  we  help  to  increase 
these  evils,  by  adding  still  another  to  the  too 
numerous  sects  and  parties  already  in  existence  ] 


37 

Think  what  a  vast  amount  of  money,  that  might 
be  directly  employed  in  alleviating  the  wants  of 
the   sick   and    the   suffering,    in   reclaiming   the 
wandering,  and  saving  the  lost,  is  now  worse  than 
wasted  in  building  higher  the  walls  of  division, 
and  drawing  deeper  the  lines  of  separation  be- 
tween Christian  brethren!      And  shall  we  open 
another  outlet  for  unholy  waste  in  this  direction  ] 
Think  of  the  wealth  and  the  working  machinery, 
and  the  many  noble  institutions  of  this  grand,  old, 
historical  Church  of  ours  ;  and  shall  we  evangelical 
men,  go  out,  and  leave  her,  with  all  her  institutions, 
and  all  her  multiplied  agencies  for  good,  in  the  con- 
trol of  a  party  who  are  seeking  to  unprotestantise 
the  Church,  and  overturn  the  very  foundation  on 
which  she  rests  1     How  shall  we  answer  it  to  our 
Master,  if  we  do]     When  He  shall  point  to  the 
scattered  and  neglected  flocks,  on  whom  we  vol- 
untarily, and  unnecessarily  turned  our  backs,  and 
address    to   us   the   solemn,    searching   question, 
"with  whom  did  ye    leave   those    few   sheep    in 
the  wilderness'?"  what  shall  we  say?     No,  for  the 
good  and  substantial  reasons  now  given,  I  believe 
that  the  duty  of  evangelical  men  in  the  Protestant 
Episcopal  Church  is  not  to  go  out  from  her,  but  to 
stand  manfully  by  her,  in  the  trying  crisis  through 
which  she  is  now  passing. 
4 


38 

In  conclusion,  let  me  say  that,  if  the  views  here 
set  forth,  had  been  taken  in  our  Church,  years 
ago,  we  never  should  have  heard  of  the  Reformed 
Church  which  has  been  started  during  the  past 
year.  And  if  the  principle  of  liberty  here  claimed 
is  only  allowed  and  exercised,  then  there  is  no 
presumption  in  asserting  that  the  days  of  this  Re- 
formed Church  are  numbered.  The  supposed 
necessity  for  its  existence  will  have  passed  away, 
and  those  who  have  joined  its  ranks  will  soon  be 
found  returning  to  their  old  places.  With  this 
principle  of  liberty  allowed  we  shall  need  no  re- 
vision of  the  Prayer-Book.  Not  a  line  of  it  need  be 
altered.  We  shall  not  require  even  the  alternate 
phrases  of  which  we  have  heard  so  much.  The 
old  Book  may  stand  as  it  has  always  stood.  We 
need  not  mar  its  beauty  by  any  erasures.  We  do 
not  strike  out,  or  enclose  in  brackets,  those  por- 
tions of  the  office  for  the  visitation  of  the  sick 
which  nobody  uses,  but  we  let  them  stand  as  they 
have  always  stood.  And  so  let  it  be  with  the 
office  for  Infant  Baptism.  There  are  many  men 
in  the  Church  who  find  no  difficulty  in  the  use  of 
the  term  "regenerate''  in  this  service.  Let  them 
go  on  and  use  it.  There  are  other  men  who  would 
rather  lay  down  their  lives  than  be  compelled  to 
use  this  term;  let  them  omit  it.     This  breaks  no 


39 

law.  It  subverts  no  authority.  It  introduces  no 
new  principle.  It  only  makes  another  application 
of  a  principle  that  has  always  been  allowed.  This 
principle  lies  embedded  in  the  granite  rock  on 
which  the  constitution  of  our  Church  is  based. 
The  two  pillars  on  which  this  principle  rests — 
pillars  that  never  can  be  shaken  while  the  Church 
stands — are  the  declaration  which  every  minister 
signs  at  the  time  of  his  ordination,  and  the  ordina- 
tion vow  to  which  I  have  referred. 

This  principle  allowed  will  give  to  our  Church 
that  element  of  flexibility  on  the  one  hand,  and 
comprehensiveness  on  the  other,  which  are  impera- 
tively demanded,  if  she  is  to  go  forward  with  suc- 
cess and  do  the  great  work  for  the  glory  of  God, 
and  for  the  good  of  men  which  I  believe  she  is 
designed  to  do. 

And  believing  this  to  be  the  only  true  way  in 
which  to  solve  the  problem  of  our  present  difficul- 
ties, I  say  frankly  here,  that  I  hope  the  General 
Convention  will  make  no  changes  in  the  Prayer- 
Book.  Memorials  to  this  eff'ect  no  doubt  will  be 
presented  there.  They  will  be  read,  of  course,  with 
the  respect  which  is  due  to  the  right  of  petition; 
but  there  I  trust  the  matter  will  be  allowed  to  rest. 
What  we  need,  in  order  to  secure  the  best  interests 
of  our  Church,  is  not  authority  from  the  General 


40 

Convention  to  do  this  thing,  or  to  leave  that  thing 
undone;  it  is  simply  to  understand  clearly  the 
law  of  liberty  wherewith  Christ  and  this  Church 
have  made  us  free;  and  faithfully,  and  as  in  the 
sight  of  God,  to  use  that  liberty. 

I  have  been  regarded  during  all  the  days  of  my 
ministerial  life  as  a  strong  party  man.  And  this, 
I  am  free  to  confess  is  the  simple  truth.  In  times 
of  strife  and  division,  men  with  clear,  strong  views 
of  doctrine  and  duty,  must  take  ground  on  one 
side  or  other,  in  reference  to  the  questions  that 
are  at  issue.  But  with  the  mellowing  influence 
of  advancing  years  I  find  myself  caring  less  and 
less  for  the  views  of  any  party,  but  more  and  more 
for  the  great  interest  and  welfare  of  the  Church 
that  I  love.  The  utterances  here  made  are  not 
the  promptings  of  any  spirit  of  party.  That  God 
who  searcheth  the  hearts  and  trieth  the  reins  of 
the  children  of  men  is  my  witness,  that  I  have 
said  nothing  on  this  occasion  but  what  I  sincerely 
believe  will  tend  to  promote  the  best  and  endur- 
ing interests  of  this  Church.  I  have  only  given 
expression  now,  for  the  first  time  in  public,  to 
thoughts  and  convictions  that  have  been  long 
maturing  in  my  own  mind,  and  have  been  pon- 
dered and  prayed  over  for  years.  The  best  years 
and  energies  of  my  life  and  heart  have  been  given 


41 

to  the  welfare  of  this  Church ;  and  in  her  service 
I  hope  to  spend  whatever  of  strength  or  life  re- 
mains to  me.  It  grieves  me  to  the  heart  when  I 
hear  of  one,  and  another,  of  those  I  love,  forsaking 
a  Church  in  which  they  hear  the  gospel  of  Jesus 
preached,  in  its  simplicity  and  fulness,  and  where 
they  have  the  most  unfettered  freedom  to  work 
for  God,  and  to  worship  Him,  that  mortal  men 
can  desire.  In  doing  this  I  cannot  but  think  they 
are  making  a  mistake ;  and  yet  it  is  not  in  my 
heart  to  give  utterance  to  one  unkind  or  reproach- 
ful word  towards  them.  This  dear  old  Church  has 
passed  through  many  periods  of  darkness  and  diffi- 
culty in  the  past.  But  God  has  always  watched 
over  and  kept  her  hitherto,  and  I  believe  He  will 
watch  over  and  keep  her  still.  She  has  weathered 
many  a  storm  before,  and  I  feel  confident  that  she 
will  weather  that  which  is  now  bursting  upon  her, 
and  causing  every  timber  in  her  venerable  frame, 
from  stem  to  stern,  to  tremble.  I  believe  that  the 
dark  clouds  now  gathering  round  her  will  break, 
and  roll  away;  and  that  she  will  come  out  from 
this  overshadowing  gloom,  "clear  as  the  sun,  fair 
as  the  moon,  beautiful  as  Tirzah,  comely  as  Jeru- 
salem, and  terrible  as  an  army  with  banners." 

There  is  one  of  our  sweet  hymns  written  by  one 
who  belonged  to  another  denomination  from  our 


42 


own.  We  are  all  accustomed  to  sing  it  in  refer- 
ence to  the  Church  universal.  We  are  also  wont 
to  apply  it  to  our  own  branch  of  that  universal 
Church.  As  expressive  of  the  deepest  feeling  of 
my  heart  to  this  dear  old  Church,  in  these  days  of 
her  sore  trial,  I  close  by  saying,  in  the  words  of 
this  hymn: — 

"  I  love  thy  Cliurcli,  0  God ; 
Her  walls  before  thee  stand, 
Dear  as  the  apple  of  thine  eye, 
And  graven  on  thy  hand. 

If  e'er  my  heart  forget 

Her  welfare,  or  her  woe, 
Let  every  joy  this  heart  forsake. 

And  every  grief  o'erflow. 

For  her  my  tears  shall  fall ; 

For  her  my  prayers  ascend  ; 
To  her  my  cares  and  toils  be  given, 

Till  toils  and  cares  shall  end." 


;";!;i: 


I 


PHOTOMOUNT   ' 
PAMPHLET  BINDER  [ 

PAT     NO.  1 

877188  , 

Manufactured  by 
eAYLORD  BROS.  Inc.  ; 
Syracuse,  N.  Y.         i 
Stockton,  Calif, 


Date  Due 


PRINTED     IN  U.  S.  A. 


BX5935.N56 

The  present  crisis  in  the  Protestant 


Princeton  Theological  Seminary-Speer  Library 


1    1012  00020  6047 


